DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09 February 2026 has been entered.
By the above submission, Claims 1, 11, and 20 have been amended. No claims have been added or canceled. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the objection to Figure 8 as requiring a prior art label and the objection to Figure 3 for informalities, Applicant merely states that Applicant is willing to consider amending Figures 3 and 8 when all other pending rejections and objections have been fully addressed (see pages 2 and 9 of the present response). Applicant’s arguments fail to comply with the requirement of 37 CFR 1.111(b) that Applicant must distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. Further, the objections to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-12, 14, and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Tran, US Patent 11321282, in view of Wentz, US Patent 11444769, and the rejection of Claims 13 and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Tran in view of Wentz, and further in view of Palyutina et al, US Patent Application Publication 2021/0092613, and with particular reference to independent Claim 1, Applicant argues that Wentz and Tran do not disclose the new limitation of verifying based on location information from two or more nodes in the system, and more specifically argues that Wentz discloses determining location of device by calculating communication time and that Tran discusses satellite-derived location (pages 9-10 of the present response, no evidence cited). However, as noted in the interview summary mailed 05 February 2026, both Tran and Wentz disclose verifying based on location information from two or more nodes in the system (see Tran, column 28, lines 1-13, where plural hosts can geolocate a device, and Wentz, column 32, lines 35-56, as previously cited, discloses the use of neighboring nodes to determine a location, and column 42, lines 6-47, as previously cited, especially lines 40-47, where node location is established by proximity to or relative to other nodes in the network).
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to abstract ideas without significantly more, Applicant repeats the allegation that the claimed technology does not include the asserted abstract idea, and that the claimed technology does not simply focus on receiving and sensing data but instead requires specific types of data recorded by particular devices (page 11 of the present response, citing comparing the digital record to data received). However, the source or content of any abstract data does not itself provide a practical application of abstract manipulation of that data. The claims still recite abstract ideas of generating a digital record (which only requires compilation or organization of data) and comparing the digital record to received data to validate the digital record (which only requires comparisons of data). The compilation, organization, and comparison of data constitute mental processes, which are one of the groupings of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). The source or content of that abstract data does not affect the determination that the claims recite mental processing of such data. Further, although Applicant repeats the assertion that the claimed technology provides a practical application because it provides an integrated system that can effectively perform a validating process in a complex environment and also asserts that the validating process is improved because it uses the claimed entry (pages 11-12 of the present response), Applicant again does not clearly explain the nexus between the asserted improved validating process and the claimed invention. More specifically, Applicant does not attempt to explain what improvement the use of the entry would actually provide or how the entry would provide such an alleged improvement. Further, it is noted that at least Claim 1 no longer recites an entry as argued.
Therefore, for the reasons detailed above, the Examiner maintains the rejections as set forth below.
Drawings
The objection to Figure 8 as requiring a prior art label and the objection to Figure 3 for informalities are NOT withdrawn for the reasons detailed above.
Figure 8 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because they include informalities. In Figure 3, the connections between the various elements of the block diagram are not clear. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to abstract ideas without significantly more is NOT withdrawn, for the reasons detailed above.
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Independent Claim 1 recites a system that includes a processor and memory configured to receive a location and a timestamp, generate a digital record based on the location and timestamp, compare the digital record to received data (including a time or distance of communication) to validate the digital record, and write the record to a blockchain. The generation of the record is a mental process because it only requires compilation of data. The comparison/validation is similarly a mental process because it only requires comparisons of data (e.g. times, directions, and locations). Mental processes are one of the groupings of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). Abstract ideas are judicial exceptions as per MPEP § 2106.04(I). See also Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank, International, et al, 573 U.S. 208, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no use or further action with respect to the validation/comparison. Nothing is done with the result of the verification. The step of receiving the location and timestamp amounts to mere data gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity as per MPEP § 2106.05(g). Similarly, at the high level recited, writing the record to a blockchain is merely necessary data output of the abstract idea, which is insignificant post-solution activity as per MPEP § 2106.05(g). There is nothing in the claim that would result in a particular transformation, as per MPEP § 2106.05(c), nor does the claim require the use of the abstract idea in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture, as per MPEP § 2106.05(b). The source of the location information being from two or more nodes merely describes the source of abstract data that is still compared in an abstract manner. The recitations of the steps being performed by a processor and memory do not constitute anything more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or a limitation to a particular technological environment, as per MPEP § 2106.05(f) and (h). There are no additional elements that apply or use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond merely linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. There is no further step taken beyond performing analysis of data that would result in a practical application of the abstract ideas. Therefore, the claim is not directed to a practical application of the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for similar reasons as detailed above with respect to the question of a practical application of the judicial exception. The steps of receiving the location and timestamp and writing the record are claimed at a high level of generality and are generally directed to transmitting or receiving data over a network, or reading or writing data to or from memory. These have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), citing Symantec, TLI, OIP Techs, buySAFE, and Versata. Therefore, the claim as a whole, whether the functions are considered individually or as an ordered combination, is not directed to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 2-10 only recite further details of the abstract idea, such as further detail of the data that is compared, or recite additional abstract concepts such as constructing a zero-knowledge proof, which is a mathematical concept. These claims recite abstract ideas for the same reasons as the independent claim, and also are not directed to a practical application and do not add significantly more to the abstract idea recited in the independent claim.
Independent Claim 11 is directed to a method that incorporates the data comparison of Claim 1 and the abstract mathematical concepts of Claim 2. The method does not integrate the abstract ides into a practical application for similar reasons as detailed above, and similarly is not directed to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Dependent Claims 12-19 only recite further details of the abstract idea, such as further detail of the data that is compared. These claims recite abstract ideas for the same reasons as the independent claim, and also are not directed to a practical application and do not add significantly more to the abstract idea recited in the independent claim.
Independent Claim 20 is directed to a computer readable medium storing instructions for performing a method that incorporates functionality corresponding to Claims 1, 2, 4, and 10, and recites abstract ideas for similar reasons. The recitation of the computer readable medium constitutes nothing more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer, as per MPEP § 2106.05(f). The claim does not integrate the abstract ides into a practical application for similar reasons as detailed above, and similarly is not directed to significantly more than the abstract ideas.
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as an ordered combination and as a whole, Claims 1-20 are determined to be directed to abstract ideas without a practical application and without significantly more, as detailed above. Therefore, based on the above analysis, the claimed inventions are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite is NOT withdrawn, because the amendments have raised new issues, as detailed below.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “verifying the accuracy of the at least one geolocation and the at least one timestamp based on location information from two or more nodes in the system” in lines 15-17. It is not grammatically clear what the phrase “based on location information” is intended to modify. It is not clear whether this is intended to modify the verification of both the geolocation and the timestamp or if time information would be required to verify the timestamp and the location information is only to be used to verify the geolocation. This ambiguity renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 11 recites “verifying the accuracy of the at least one geolocation and the at least one timestamp based on location information from two or more nodes” in lines 10-11. It is not grammatically clear what the phrase “based on location information” is intended to modify. It is not clear whether this is intended to modify the verification of both the geolocation and the timestamp or if time information would be required to verify the timestamp and the location information is only to be used to verify the geolocation. This ambiguity renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 20 recites “verifying the accuracy of the at least one geolocation and the at least one timestamp based on location information from two or more nodes” in lines 12-13. It is not grammatically clear what the phrase “based on location information” is intended to modify. It is not clear whether this is intended to modify the verification of both the geolocation and the timestamp or if time information would be required to verify the timestamp and the location information is only to be used to verify the geolocation. This ambiguity renders the claim indefinite.
Claims not explicitly referred to above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-12, 14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran, US Patent 11321282, in view of Wentz, US Patent 11444769.
In reference to Claim 1, Tran discloses a system that includes a processor and memory configured to receive at least one geolocation and at least one timestamp from a device and generate at least one digital record based on the geolocation and timestamp (see column 27, lines 39-52, verifying location and time; column 28, lines 14-34, obtaining accurate position and date/time information); compare the at least one record to data received from a third-party device to validate the digital record and verify the accuracy of the geolocation and timestamp based on location information from two or more nodes in the system, where the received data includes an entry indicating the time and distance of communication with the third party device, and where the third party device was previously verified (column 27, lines 39-52, verifying location and time, and column 28, lines 1-13, where plural hosts can geolocate a device; see also column 28, lines 14-42, and column 30, lines 6-13, hotspot can be verified, noting column 28, lines 14-34, obtaining accurate position and date/time information; see further column 55, lines 10-35, logs having entries are collected; column 61, lines 2-8, location information in database); and write the record to at least one blockchain (see column 28, line 57-column 29, line 11). However, Tran does not explicitly disclose that the third-party device includes a node in a trusted network.
Wentz discloses a system that includes a trusted third-party device that includes a node in a trusted network (see column 47, lines 19-45, verified node; column 32, lines 35-56, trust level of nodes in a network; column 42, lines 6-47, and column 46, lines 9-34, trustworthiness of a node in a network) where a digital record and received data are compared to validate the digital record and verify accuracy of geolocation and timestamp based on location information from two or more nodes in the system, where the received data includes an entry indicating the time and distance of communication with the third party device (see column 47, lines 19-45, where spatial data and a time range of communication are compared and verified; see also column 37, lines 4-49, timestamps and locations in entries or data log; column 32, lines 35-56, using neighboring nodes to determine a location, and column 42, lines 6-47, especially lines 40-47, node location is established by proximity to or relative to other nodes in the network). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Tran to include the node in a trusted network as taught by Wentz, in order to allow detection of fraudulent data (see Wentz, column 2, lines 31-46, for example).
In reference to Claims 2-4 and 10, Tran and Wentz further disclose constructing a zero-knowledge proof based on the geolocation and timestamp including querying a database of authorized regions, generating a predicate based on the proof, and writing the predicate to the blockchain (see Tran, column 29, lines 12-46, zero-knowledge proof of proximity; see also Wentz, column 46, line 59-column 47, line 45).
In reference to Claims 5 and 6, Tran and Wentz further disclose analyzing a ping log associated with the third-party device (see Tran, column 29, lines 12-46).
In reference to Claim 7, Tran and Wentz further disclose a mobile device, computer, laptop, tablet, server, satellite, tower, router, node, hotspot, or video device (see Tran, column 28, lines 14-56, hotspots, satellites, etc.).
With respect to Claims 8 and 9, Tran and Wentz further disclose as detailed above with respect to Claim 1. Although Tran and Wentz disclose locations and times, neither Tran nor Wentz explicitly discloses the location in KML format or the time in Unix format. Official notice is taken that it was well-known and standardized to use KML format for location data and Unix format for time data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the system of Tran and Wentz to include the use of KML and Unix formats in order to take advantage of the widespread adoption of these formats for compatibility purposes.
Claims 11, 12, 14, 18, and 19 are directed to methods corresponding substantially to the functionality of Claims 1 and 2, 4, 10, 7, and 8 and 9, respectively, and are rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Claim 20 is directed to a software implementation having functionality corresponding to that of Claims 1, 2, 4, and 10, and is rejected by a similar rationale, mutatis mutandis.
Claims 13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran in view of Wentz as applied to Claims 12 and 11 above, and further in view of Palyutina et al, US Patent Application Publication 2021/0092613.
With respect to Claim 13, Tran and Wentz disclose everything as detailed above with respect to Claim 12, but do not explicitly disclose an action response from a verifier as claimed. Palyutina discloses a method that includes receiving an action response including an acknowledgement message, warning message, or disbursement of a prize or money (see paragraph 0036). Similarly, with respect to Claims 15-17, Tran and Wentz disclose everything as detailed above with respect to Claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose transmitting cryptocurrency. However, Paluyutina discloses a method that includes transmitting cryptocurrency in exchange for proof of location (see paragraph 0037). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the method of Tran and Wentz to include the action response as taught by Palyutina in order to incentivize providing location information by providing a reward in exchange (see Palyutina, paragraph 0034).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zachary A Davis whose telephone number is (571)272-3870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm, Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rupal D Dharia can be reached at (571) 272-3880. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Zachary A. Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492